•  
  •  
 

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING: REMINISCENCE TOWARDS LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES

Guest Editors: B.W Wahab, W. Kadiri, A.A. Popoola, R. Dwamena and B.M. Adeleye

Introduction

The famous definition of planning as “the art of arranging structures on the land and shaping the spaces between, an art linked to architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, and city planning” by Kevin Lynch (1984) in his book ‘The Image of the City’ provides an historical guess to the notion that planning is ancient, multi-sectoral, and multidisciplinary. The definition presents a notion that planning is mental and perceptual. The perceptual underpinning dictates the role of humans in shaping settlements and places. An understanding that writers such as Jagannath (2019) terms ‘humanistic design planning and environmental psychology’. This theme by Jagannath (2019) presents a need to consider planning from a micro-level or smaller unit of measurement. This therefore led to the emergence of the concept of neighbourhood by Clarence Perry in 1929.

Neighbourhood planning (NP) is a planning process in which communities decide the future of the places where they live and work (Parker et al., 2019). The liveability of workplace and place of resident emerged from the view that NP was both a response to placelessness (along the micro planning unit of space) and response to the degenerated social and environmental conditions that emerged out of the industrial revolution.  That is an open-ended process guided by the citizen (Talen, 2019) that provides a sense of community where people could interact and socialize. Neighbourhood planning according to Parker (2012) allows for a community based radical strategy to emerging spatial problem. The writer documented that neighbourhood planning provides a room for the merging of formal (government and agencies) ideas with the local or informal (community resident), such that a cooperation is able to achieve an inclusive neighbourhood defined solution to identified problems. Recognising this, Bradley (2018) wrote that where development policy may privilege the supposed objectivity of technocratic rationalism, participation brings other ways of knowing and different types of evidence and methods of evidence gathering to the understanding of place (p.2). He further wrote that participatory planning practice has been seen as a touchstone for the ability of technocratic knowledge to accommodate lay perspectives of lived space. The incorporation of place-based knowledge in development planning becomes integral to the epistemology through which abstract space is produced (p.24).

Studies have documented the fluidity on content, context, and conceptualisation that surrounds the neighbourhood debates (Filion, 1988; Addison, 2015; Barton & Grant, 2015). For instance, the study of Yuille (2020) argue that neighbourhood planning is performative: it does not merely give powers to an already-existing community, but produces new actors, new collective identities, which are constituted both materially and socially (p.1382). This explains that neighbourhood planning over the years continues to change in response to expected project or planning outcomes. This is because planning as a discipline and practice is not static and continues to change based on places, time, and scenario/circumstances. Putting time into context towards the understanding the evolution of neighbourhood, Forrest (2008) presented two views. The first view is the perceived global view in the face of globalisation accompanied with technological change and postmodern cosmopolitanism that the concept and principle of neighbourhood is rapidly diminishing in importance in our everyday lives. The second which is the basis for Forrest’s study is a reflection on the current revival and resonance of interest in community and neighbourhood in the contemporary world (which mainly is perceived to be Eurocentric). Whatever side of the coin, this special issue aligns with the dynamics in neighbourhood over the years and the limited or lack of local setting-oriented discussion along neighbourhood planning. The proposed issue is also an advocacy for need to revisit neighbourhood planning process and procedure towards liveable communities.

Studies have reported on the evolution and dynamics of planning as both practice and discipline. This evolving planning ideals can be traced to changes in local setting, culture or ethnic alignment of community dwellers (Muñoz, 1997; Burayidi, 2015), discipline approach (Pickett et al., 2004), effect of policy iteration (Parker et al., 2023), the evolution of the planning utopians (Mrduljaš & Kulić, 2012), and/or the transition over time (e.g the twentieth century movement and contemporary planning) (Gurran & Bramley, 2017). Based mainly on the argument of Parker et al. (2023) on that neighbourhood planning practice over the years have experienced numerous changes. This the author mentioned that the neighbourhood planning alteration(s) has produced a range of neighbourhood planning forms that are reflected through the interplay of institutionalised agency, local conditions, policy iterations and varied community-local scale dynamics. Yet, as argued, neighbourhood planning continues to unfold.

In this special issue, the call for revisit to neighbourhood emerges from two standpoints. One is the continued planning problems that keeps emerging and the other, limited knowledge on neighbourhood planning. Many studies have documented the flawed and complete gap in knowledge on the workings of neighbourhood planning towards achieving a livable community (Brookfield, 2017; McGuinness & Ludwig, 2017; Bradley, 2018; Lee et al., 2022). Most importantly, Lee et al. (2022) argued that neighbourhood planning remains an under-utilised ideology, approach, and process of achieving community liveability. An experience the author referred to as ‘policy myopia’. This, therefore, raises the need to reminiscence neighbourhood planning towards liveable communities. The aim is to cast a critical eye on the interdisciplinary prisms of neighbourhood planning can be applied or as been used to achieving liveable communities.

Suggested themes.

  • Curriculum Change, Training and Education in Neighbourhood and Community Planning
  • Future Cities and City Re-engineering: People in and People Planning Cities
  • Infrastructure Planning and Facility Allocation: Needs VS Wants
  • Inclusive and Community Design for the Vulnerable Group
  • Neighbourhood Planning and Case Studies
  • Sustainable, liveable Communities, localism and public interest in planning process
  • Traffic and Mobility System Planning
  • Role of Technology (cartography, GIS, maps) in site and settlement planning
  • Urban Design, Smart City and Development
  • Urban Renewal, Settlement Reconstruction, and Projects Case Studies

Manuscript submission information:

CSID Journal of Infrastructure (CJID) online submission system: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/cgi/submit.cgi?context=jid

Authors should indicate that the paper is submitted for consideration for publication in this special issue. When choosing Manuscript “Article Type” during the submission procedure, click “special issue”, otherwise your submission will be handled as a regular manuscript. Author Guidelines: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/jid/styleguide.html

Interested authors who would like to make informal communication with guest editors about their manuscript, please submit 150-300 words abstract describing the research relevance, methods, results (expected) and implications of their papers to guest editor at and copy to Dr Ayobami Popoola . Make sure to mention the title of the special issue in your submission. Kindly note that full manuscript submission is also welcomed.

Suggested Timeframes:

15th September 2023               Final date for acceptance of topics and abstracts

30th September 2023               Submission of accepted articles full manuscript

30th November 2023               Return of peer reviewed articles

30th January 2024                   Submission of final versions of all articles

30th February 2024                 Final proof reading and desk copy editing, phase

25th March 2024                     Final Publication

Reference

Addison, L. (2015). Building collaborative partnerships. In The Routledge Handbook Of Planning For Health And Well-Being (pp. 343-358). Routledge.

Barton, H., & Grant, M. (2015). Scenarios for neighbourhood planning. The Routledge Handbook of Planning for Health and Well-Being: Shaping a sustainable and healthy future, 225.

Bradley, Q (2018) Neighbourhood planning and the production of spatial knowledge. Town Planning Review, 89(1), 23-42. ISSN 0041-0020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2018.2

Brookfield, K. (2017). Getting involved in plan-making: Participation in neighbourhood planning in England. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(3), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16664518

Burayidi, M. (Ed.). (2015). Cities and the politics of difference: Multiculturalism and diversity in urban planning. University of Toronto Press.

Filion, P. (1988). The Neighbourhood Improvement Plan: Montreal and Toronto: Contrasts between a participatory and a centralized approach to urban policy making. Urban History Review / Revue d'histoire urbaine, 17(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.7202/1017698ar

Forrest, R. (2008). Who cares about neighbourhoods?. International Social Science Journal, 59(191), 129-141.

Jagannath, T. (17 February 2019). Influence on Urban Planning by Kevin A. Lynch. Available at: https://planningtank.com/blog/influence-on-urban-planning-kevin-lynch

Lee, C., Parker, G., Buckner, S., Mattocks, C., Barnes, A., Oliver, E. J., Cowan, A. & Lafortune, L. (2022). Neighbourhood planning, rural ageing and public health policy in England: a case of policy myopia?. Town Planning Review, 93(3), 275-300.

Lynch, K., & Hack, G. (1984). Site planning. MIT press.

Gurran, N., & Bramley, G. (2017). Urban planning and the housing market. Urban planning and renewal. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. https://doi. org/10.1057/978-1-137-46403-3.

McGuinness, D., & Ludwig, C. (2017). "Six: Developing a neighbourhood plan: stories from ‘community-led’ planning pathfinders". In Localism and Neighbourhood Planning. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447329510.ch006

Mrduljaš, M., & Kulić, V. (Eds.). (2012). Unfinished modernisations: Between utopia and pragmatism:[architecture and urban planning in the former Yugoslavia and the successor states]. UHA/CCA.

Muñoz, F. (1997). Historic evolution and urban planning typology of Olympic Villages. Olympic Villages: A Hundred Years of Urban Planning and Shared Experiences. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 27-51.

Parker, G. (2012). Neighbourhood planning: precursors, lessons and prospects. Journal of Planning and Environment Law, 40(13), 1-20.

Parker, G., Salter, K., & Wargent, M. (2019). Neighbourhood planning in practice. London: Lund Humphries.

Parker, G., Wargent, M., Salter, K., & Yuille, A. (2023). Neighbourhood planning in England: A decade of institutional learning. Progress in Planning, 100749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2023.100749

Pickett, S., Cadenasso, M., & Grove, J. (2004). Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and urban planning, 69(4), 369-384.

Talen, E. (2019). Plan vs. process: the case of neighbourhood planning. Built Environment, 45(2), 173-189.

Yuille, A. (2020). Performing legitimacy in neighbourhood planning: Conflicting identities and hybrid governance. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 38(7-8), 1367-1385.